In the mid-1980s, a controversy suddenly arose within the British Society of Dowsers. It had to do with Earth Energies and a new invention intended to aid their removal. Earth energies were becoming an increasingly important part of members’ interests. It might seem rather ludicrous to non-dowsers, how so much angst could be caused by something so seemingly trivial, but it illustrates how seriously some dowsers take such matters. In the end, the matter was rather cleverly side stepped by the Society, by referring the subject to the “sound” judgement of its scientific advisor, the same Dr Bailey mentioned in the post of 13-06-2020 on radionics. What he has to say on the matter is perhaps the most interesting part of the affair. However, I include all the published correspondence including Dr Bailey’s “report”, as it appeared in the following BSD Journal article, “De-raying devices. Report from the Editor”

http://www.dowsing-research.net/blog_extracts/BSD_No210_1985_p151.pdf

A picture of the device is here:

http://www.dowsing-research.net/blog_extracts/Beadon_cube.jpg

The story began with two well-known dowsers of the time, who belonged to the “Worthing dowsers”, Geoffrey King and Wing Commander Clive V. Beadon. (There are a number of small dowsing groups within the UK, some of whom are affiliated with the British Society of Dowsers.) These two individuals had been working some time on a device to remove harmful Earth energies. The device, which became known as the “Beadon cube”, was constructed from Perspex, moulded from liquid methyl methacrylate, into which had been carefully placed a spiral of copper wire. (Later the device would include selected gemstones and become an octahedron.) The claim was that, if placed on a map, then one was unable to dowse within the area covered by the spiral, that is, find any of the things you would normally be able to dowse for, eg water or pipes. Apparently, it removed the dowsing “influence” of such things, rather than acting on the dowser themselves.

There was a good deal of excitement about this innovation, some considered it a “quantum leap” forward. However, there were others amongst the Worthing dowsers, who were concerned that the device might also have harmful effects. Rather than investigate themselves, and cause a potential split between the membership, they appealed to the BSD to setup a committee to test this device.

The BSD council was rather reluctant to do an investigation, because they felt the results would not be unequivocal. In an effort at compromise, they asked Dr Bailey to give his opinion. His repsonse begins on page 162.

Bailey acknowledged that although there is a lot of evidence for non-physical Earth energies, this was mainly derived through dowsing, and that “dowsing results only are no evidence at all”. However, his own experience was that “people and animals ARE influenced by things that are not scientifically measurable” [his capitals].  But the whole field was difficult to understand. In fact, he asserts that “it is the EXPLANATIONS that cause the problems” [his capitals]. He acknowledged that there are no radiations that can account for dowsing. All the terms for Earth energies were just “mind constructs”, and the dowsers using these terms often had no exact idea what is meant by these ideas. What was needed was some objective criteria, using dowsing first to find an influence, followed by an examination into whether people were being harmed or actually benefitting from the “energies”. He pointed to the instance of such practice in article by David Steven, in the posting: 16-06-2020 – Clearing energy lines.  

In his report, Bailey therefore stuck to the observed facts, as he understood them. These were in summary:

1/ People can be affected by the environment in which they live.

2/ It is possible to improve this environment. Devices appear to work, only because the operator is present and believes in them.

3/ The improvement is not auto-suggestion.

4/ It is possible to be influenced by the thoughts of another. So, it is no surprise if many people get the same results.

5/ One’s own beliefs and motivations affect one’s dowsing results. (A humble approach was best).

He concluded with the assertion, that it is the practitioner rather than the methods that is important, and he looks upon so called de-raying devices as merely “props”. What is more fundamental is the integrity of intention of the person investigating the problem.